{"id":4216,"date":"2010-07-01T11:31:15","date_gmt":"2010-07-01T15:31:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/?p=4216"},"modified":"2010-07-01T13:59:46","modified_gmt":"2010-07-01T17:59:46","slug":"the-big-sticks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2010\/07\/01\/the-big-sticks\/","title":{"rendered":"the big sticks…"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Conservatives use Pelosi as face of liberalism in campaign ads<\/a>
Washington Post<\/strong>
By Karen Tumulty
July 1, 2010 <\/div>\n

\n

Beware! Nancy Pelosi is a colossal tax-dollar-engorged monster who ravages small towns and must be brought down by Republican ray guns. Or at least that is what a cartoon version of the House speaker looked like in "Attack of the 50-Foot Pelosi," a television ad that a conservative group called Right Change aired in Pennsylvania last month. <\/p>\n

A new Web site by the National Republican Congressional Committee portrays her as a malevolent puppet master, yanking the strings of 10 vulnerable House Democrats. <\/p>\n

And a video on the campaign home page of GOP House candidate Harold Johnson of North Carolina makes her sound like someone out of those creepy cable ads for burglar alarms. "If you’re a small-business owner," Johnson says, "you get up every morning and you put your helmet on, because you think that Nancy Pelosi is going to come into your bedroom and hit you over the head with a baseball bat"…<\/p>\n

Pelosi [D-CA] has become "the face of liberalism in the Obama era," more so than Obama himself, said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton. Her infamy among conservatives is partly the product of her often-imperious manner, a rougher media culture and a superheated political climate. But it is also a backhanded acknowledgment of how effective she has been. <\/p>\n

Pelosi has unabashedly wielded the leverage of her office to muscle her agenda through the House. Once dismissed by her opponents – and even some of her fellow Democrats – as a lightweight, she has proved to be "the most powerful speaker we’ve seen in modern history," said political analyst Charlie Cook, whose assessment is shared by a number of congressional scholars. <\/p>\n

More questionable is whether making Pelosi the bogeywoman of this year’s congressional elections will help Republicans win back the House…<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
In my last post, I felt bad about being so whiny about the Republican monotony – the contemptuousness, particularly the failure to recognize Pelosi’s effectiveness. It’s as if this article came along to make me feel more comfortable with my lament. Silly me. I don’t even think Obama and Pelosi are "Liberal." But that argument won’t get me anywhere – not in today’s climate. I do have a thought about all of this. Later in the article it says:<\/div>\n
\n
This is the kind of problem that J. Dennis Hastert, Carl Albert and Frederick Gillett never had to deal with. House speakers, with a few exceptions, have been such colorless legislative insiders that the mention of their names in most of America would have received no reaction beyond quizzical looks. Not this year, and not this speaker. "If you go to almost any grass-roots event and you mention the speaker’s name," said Bill Flores, a Republican who is challenging Rep. Chet Edwards [ D-TX], "you will get a huge response from the audience." Which is why, by Flores’s estimate, he manages to drop Pelosi’s name into his speeches about as often as he does President Obama’s.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Nancy Pelosi is a woman. Barack Obama is black. I think the Republicans are banking on those two points for the entirety of their attack strategy. Replace the word "liberal" with "woman" or "black man" and the emotional point they’re trying to make comes through. "Those blacks and women are taking over!" It’s the Karl Rove way – find the prejudice and exploit it. We got a taste from none other that Dick Cheney early in Pelosi’s tenure. I put it this way in 2007:<\/div>\n
\n